Premium
A peer‐based intervention to educate liver transplant candidates about living donor liver transplantation
Author(s) -
DeLair Samantha,
Feeley Thomas Hugh,
Kim Hyunjung,
del Rio Martin Juan,
KimSchluger Leona,
LaPointe Rudow Dianne,
Orloff Mark,
Sheiner Patricia A.,
Teperman Lewis
Publication year - 2010
Publication title -
liver transplantation
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.814
H-Index - 150
eISSN - 1527-6473
pISSN - 1527-6465
DOI - 10.1002/lt.21937
Subject(s) - medicine , liver transplantation , living donor liver transplantation , intervention (counseling) , intensive care medicine , gastroenterology , transplantation , nursing
The number of liver donors has not measurably increased since 2004 and has begun to decrease. Although many waitlisted patients may be suitable candidates to receive a living donor graft, they are often reticent to discuss living donation with close friends and family, partly because of a lack of knowledge about donor health and quality of life outcomes after donation. The objective of this study was to test the effectiveness of an educational intervention that uses testimonials and self‐report data from living donors in New York State. The study had an independent sample pretest (n = 437) and posttest (n = 338) design with posttest, between‐subjects comparison for intervention exposure. All waitlisted patients at 5 liver transplant centers in New York were provided a peer‐based educational brochure and DVD either by mail or at the clinic. The outcome measures were liver candidates' knowledge and self‐efficacy to discuss living donation with family and friends. The number and proportion of individuals who presented to centers for living liver donation evaluation were also measured. Liver transplant candidates' self‐efficacy to discuss living donation and their knowledge increased from the pretest period to the posttest period. Those exposed to the peer‐based intervention reported significantly greater knowledge, a greater likelihood of discussing donation, and increased self‐efficacy in comparison with those not exposed to the intervention. The results did not differ by age, length of time on the waiting list, education, or ethnicity. In comparison with the preintervention period, living donation increased 42%, and the number of individuals who presented for donation evaluation increased by 74%. Liver Transpl 16:42–48, 2010. © 2009 AASLD.